THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO MY TWIN BROTHER, BILL DYKES (1943-1995). WE WERE NOT ONLY BROTHERS BUT PARTNERS IN BUSINESS AND BEST FRIENDS!AND TO ALL THE "BUTCHERS" THAT HAVE PASSED ON TO THE BIG LOT IN THE SKY!

CIRCUS NOW OPEN!

2014 Convention

SAVE THE DATES

Thursday, January 3, 2013

The Daily CallerAnimal rights
groups‚ vs. elephantsBy Buckley CarlsonJanuary 1st,
2013As you wade through the ever-mounting requests for your
charitable dollars, cast a wary eye on these year-end supplicants, as
there‚s a good chance the charity seeking your money is relying upon an
emotional appeal that is at extreme variance with its actual aims and deeds.
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA),
with its humiliating and expensive defeat last week in its decade-long
battle to outlaw elephants at Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus, is
one such charity.

But, while ASPCA now limps away ˜ proverbial tail
between the legs ˜ having coughed up a $9.3 million settlement to Barnum
& Bailey‚s owner, Feld Entertainment, the legal case against its
co-defendants (the Humane Society of the United States [HSUS], the Fund for
Animals, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Animal Protection Institute, Born
Free USA, and the Wildlife Advocacy Project) continues unabated, exposing
widespread, coordinated, and illegal conduct from some of America‚s largest
„animal rights advocacy‰ groups.

This interminable legal odyssey ˜
clogging up the court system for 12 years, consuming untold taxpayer dollars
(and more than $22 million in Feld Entertainment‚ s funds), diverting
judges‚ time and attention ˜ began as a manufactured lawsuit, a complete
fabrication cooked up by the defendants; they actually paid a former
Ringling Bros. elephant trainer nearly $200,000 to claim injuries that
didn't exist. Predictably, the court rejected his testimony, sending what
should be an indelible message that paid plaintiffs, especially those that
use litigation to fund-raise have no place in the American justice
system.

Undeterred, these self-styled „animal rights advocates‰ have
pursued an ever more radical agenda, manipulating the court system in
a never-ending series of twists and turns, finally claiming that
Ringling Bros. is violating the Endangered Species Act by harming its
elephants with the guides and tethers it uses.

And, of course, they
lob these charges against a company that employs teams of full-time
veterinarians; subjects itself to constant scrutiny, undergoing repeated
inspection by federal, state, and local authorities in every city in which
its circus performs; displays visibly healthy, clean animals; has never once
been found in violation of the Animal Welfare Act, the comprehensive and
demanding federal law that regulates treatment of animals by circuses, zoos,
and other exhibitors; and has been a happy household name in America for
generations, very much as a result of the joy it has brought to both parents
and children alike.

If the ASPCA settlement is any guide, these other
„animal rights‰ groups will also get their justice, however slow the system
labors on; their litigation abuse, suborning of perjury, and racketeering
are all well documented. Still, it‚s time for a public examination of
these tax-exempt „charities,‰ as well as an affirmation that if they want
to preserve their status, they need to adhere to the mission
statements that earned them their special status in the first place. Being
exempt from taxes does not make a group exempt from the
law.

Americans deserve a lot better from their „charities.‰ In fact,
it‚s time non-profits are held to the same standards as their
for-profit brethren. If a group of for-profit companies had conspired to
engage in similar criminal conduct, they would have suffered swift and
brutal legal and public-relations repercussions. But here, because
the perpetrators are public charities, it‚s somehow acceptable
that authorities and the media look askance.

Why do so many seem so
unconcerned that fake litigation was ginned up and used to make money in the
name of „charity‰?

Two conclusions are inescapable:

1) The average
donor to one of these charities has no idea her hard-earned dollars are
being used to fund these anti-corporate campaigns, the purpose of which is
to deny ordinary people an opportunity they‚d never have otherwise: to view
these majestic animals up close, in a safe, controlled environment. How many
puppies, kittens, and abandoned adult animals could have been spayed,
provided shelter and medical attention, and adopted to loving homes for
$200,000? Quite a few, according to my favorite animal charity in
Washington, the Washington Animal Rescue League (WARL.org), from which my family has adopted
two angelic dogs.

2) These self-proclaimed „animal rights advocates‰
don‚t really care about animals. If they did, how could they justify
burdening Feld Entertainment to the tune of $22 million with ill-founded
litigation? That‚s money that Ringling Bros. could have spent attending to
its Asian elephants and stable of other fine animals. Ringling Bros. has
an obvious incentive, as well as a long-established track record,
of actually caring for and maintaining its elephant population.

ASPCA
reportedly has assets of more than $400 million, raising more than $111
million in cash in 2011 alone. Its co-defendants ˜ equally ferocious in
their battle to destroy the family-owned and much beloved Barnum &
Bailey Circus ˜ are similarly well endowed. Isn‚t it time charitable,
animal-loving Americans (and a newly augmented IRS staff) took a closer look
at the non-profits that purport to represent their interests? In this
economy, and with their as-yet-undetermined tax increase looming, how can
they afford not to?

Buckley Carlson, a Washington-based writer and
political strategist, can be reached at Buckley@buckmedia. org.